Alliston case

tangled_metal

It's not an either or case is it? Enact the law for cycling that mirrors driving laws and attack the cyclist deaths. Do both. Why do you think tackling the cycling anomaly in legislation to charge cyclists in the case of causing a death in a similar charge options to motorists prevents any other actions to improve road safety to go ahead?

Making it all a divisive argument by presenting the victim card as a cyclist isn't a good approach IMHO. Arguing against one positive action because it isn't the action you want, well I reckon that's shortsighted.

StillGoing

Tangled Metal wrote:

It's not an either or case is it? Enact the law for cycling that mirrors driving laws and attack the cyclist deaths. Do both. Why do you think tackling the cycling anomaly in legislation to charge cyclists in the case of causing a death in a similar charge options to motorists prevents any other actions to improve road safety to go ahead?

Making it all a divisive argument by presenting the victim card as a cyclist isn't a good approach IMHO. Arguing against one positive action because it isn't the action you want, well I reckon that's shortsighted.

He's a sandal wearing tree hugger, don't worry.

tangled_metal

I wear sandals, sports ones when in the outdoors. I'm not a tree hugger but have been a tree swinger. That is I've got a hammock I've slung between two trees when camping. Not a hippy but thinking of getting a singlespeed so am I a hipster?

Although I can't see the out and out defence of cyclists and refusal to think a loophole in legislation against cyclists who act dangerously on the road needs closing. It's one action that can be done as well as any other action that the Allison defenders would approve of.

stueys

Ultimately if you are in charge of a vehicle then you have an obligation to ensure that vehicle isn't a danger to others. That includes cars, bikes, horses, etc, etc. I think riding a bike without brakes through a busy city (no clear sight lines, chaotic environment, etc) fails that test. The legal outcome has been right on this one.

stevie63

I have commented on this up thread and whilst I have raised an argument over whether new laws need to be brought in, I do feel that an appropriate verdict has been made by the jury in this case.

Dorset_Boy

Maybe the verdict is right here. I'm not convinced Alliston has shown 'no remorse', but I would suggest he is frustrated that all the blame is laid at his door and none at the victim for stepping out without looking properly.
Maybe that will be reflected in the sentence, but I get the impression the judge has taken a significant dislike to the defendant.

Jerry185

Twopennyworth.
When I first read about this case (at the start of the trial), I was surprised about the paucity of any detail on it (Times paper): "loud mouth lout on a bike kills pedestrian." Shock horror; he must have ploughed into her on the pavement whilst doing 30mph
Even now I still don't know whether he rode through a red light or not. Guessing the latter other wise there would have been more large font.
However, what has come out now, is that his speed on braking (yes, he had one brake) was 16mph. Speed on impact was 10 mph.
Woman was on her mobile phone
Woman was walking in the road
Woman hesitated then stepped back into to the direction the cyclist diverted into.
I'm convinced that what the jury were convinced of was that
The cyclist was a lout
The cyclist showed no remorse and posted a stupid comment on FB
The victim was a mother of two
The bike was illegal to use on a road
Pardon me, but none of those four facts make him guilty, but the jury decided he should
He should appeal

pblakeney

4th fact does though.

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

It's not an either or case is it? Enact the law for cycling that mirrors driving laws and attack the cyclist deaths. Do both. Why do you think tackling the cycling anomaly in legislation to charge cyclists in the case of causing a death in a similar charge options to motorists prevents any other actions to improve road safety to go ahead?

Making it all a divisive argument by presenting the victim card as a cyclist isn't a good approach IMHO. Arguing against one positive action because it isn't the action you want, well I reckon that's shortsighted.

this is interesting reading...

https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/08/21/the-char ... eal-story/

Yes of course do both, but thats not what is being called for...

in the last 20 years, how many people have been killed by an illegal bicycle? there is little or no extra Parliamentary time for new legislation but if there is, why not focus on the majority cause of deaths on our roads? bad driving and the subsequent lack of consistent sentencing/prosecution.

dont you see that the media is focusing on this case because it excuses the numbers killed (without prosecution) by motorised transport, its certainly not about excusing the cyclists illegal bike or behavior but posting on FB stupid comments is hardly a jailable offence but apparently now it is.....

trivial_poursuivant

I'm sure many would agree a whole new updated - fit for the 21st century - Highway Code/ road traffic act or whatever it may be needs to be brought out very soon.

The last time the Road Traffic Act was updated was 1991. Over a quarter of a century ago! Traffic volume has exploded in that time. Technology has brought in many new safety features. Christ we could have motorways and city streets driven on by autonomous trucks in a few years. A few amendments here and there are not enough. A complete review of the entire road system and the current trends of the people that use them need a massive overhaul. Some things may change in a way people disagree with but at least we will know where we stand, cut the the ambiguity and reliance on archaic Victorian laws to seal convictions only because there was nothing on the statute books that made any sense. Add to this a more understandable law on mobile phone use for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians all using the same roads. Make things as clear and concise as possible and drill it home what is acceptable behaviour in our modern times.

stueys

Jerry185 wrote:

Twopennyworth.

However, what has come out now, is that his speed on braking (yes, he had one brake) was 16mph. Speed on impact was 10 mph.
Woman was on her mobile phone
Woman was walking in the road
Woman hesitated then stepped back into to the direction the cyclist diverted into.
I'm convinced that what the jury were convinced of was that
The cyclist was a lout
The cyclist showed no remorse and posted a stupid comment on FB
The victim was a mother of two
The bike was illegal to use on a road
Pardon me, but none of those four facts make him guilty, but the jury decided he should
He should appeal

- The court transcript and subsequent reports have shown that she wasn't on a mobile phone.
- Yes, he had one brake, it was ineffective for the road (which is why it's illegal for road use), tests by the police have shown that if his bike was legal he would have been able to avoid the impact
- Yes, she stepped out in front of him. If you ride bikes often you'll notice that pedestrians do that as bikes are silent. You need to be able to react to people doing the unexpected. Which takes us back to the illegal bike point

Ultimately he rode a bike that wasn't fit for purpose on the roads and someone was killed as a consequence. No different than driving a car with illegal tyres and killing someone through skidding in the wet, in both cases its negligent.

Ben6899

Jerry185 wrote:

Twopennyworth.
When I first read about this case (at the start of the trial), I was surprised about the paucity of any detail on it (Times paper): "loud mouth lout on a bike kills pedestrian." Shock horror; he must have ploughed into her on the pavement whilst doing 30mph
Even now I still don't know whether he rode through a red light or not. Guessing the latter other wise there would have been more large font.
However, what has come out now, is that his speed on braking (yes, he had one brake) was 16mph. Speed on impact was 10 mph.
Woman was on her mobile phone
Woman was walking in the road
Woman hesitated then stepped back into to the direction the cyclist diverted into.
I'm convinced that what the jury were convinced of was that
The cyclist was a lout
The cyclist showed no remorse and posted a stupid comment on FB
The victim was a mother of two
The bike was illegal to use on a road
Pardon me, but none of those four facts make him guilty, but the jury decided he should
He should appeal

She wasn't.

frisbee

Ben6899 wrote:

She wasn't.

Sure about that? The media were so obsessed about demonising the cyclist (quite justifiably as he's a tool of the highest order) that they didn't really report what the woman was doing. I'm not sure the Daily Mail even mentioned the price of her house!

Ben6899

Very sure. It's in the court transcripts.

mamba80

Lorries have long known to be one if not the highest cause of death on UK roads, yet absolutely nothing gets done about it.
the terrible accident on the M1 today shows what these things can do, werent 6 people killed shortly after the MAnchester bomb by a lorry? no calls from the media to curb this death toll.... such is the unlikelihood of getting stopped by our tiny traffic police, they even drive around pissed!!!
yet one rogue cyclist has a freak accident and suddenly cyclists are public enemy no1 and need new legislation before more innocents are mown down, backed up by many riders on this forum.

tangled_metal

I think everyone wants those deaths curbed. Doesn't mean you can't look at offences relating to road use by cyclists, indeed carry it out for all road use. However, the easy win is an alternative to manslaughter for cyclists that is more tolerable for juries. I think I read somewhere that manslaughter for motorists isn't used often not because it's not appropriate but because juries tend not to convict for manslaughter because of various reasons such as it's thought of as being a very serious offence for a motorists. So they resort to an offence that's got less connotations. Cyclists need that because among other reasons they're classed as carriages too.

It's in court transcripts that Alliston admitted under questioning that the pedestrian had no phone or he had not seen it. No mention of her phone nearby neither. If she'd been on the phone someone is likely to pick it up for her to go in the ambulance or at least the police would have got hold of it and it had been reported on in the media.

StillGoing

mamba80 wrote:

Lorries have long known to be one if not the highest cause of death on UK roads, yet absolutely nothing gets done about it.
the terrible accident on the M1 today shows what these things can do, werent 6 people killed shortly after the MAnchester bomb by a lorry? no calls from the media to curb this death toll.... such is the unlikelihood of getting stopped by our tiny traffic police, they even drive around pissed!!!
yet one rogue cyclist has a freak accident and suddenly cyclists are public enemy no1 and need new legislation before more innocents are mown down, backed up by many riders on this forum.

Seriously, get off playing the "I'm a cyclist and a victim" card. Your arguments are flawed in so many ways and attitudes of cyclists are always hard done by, only highlight to others what pretentious w4nkers cyclists can be..

Moonbiker

Some "drivers" will now probably feel justified driving more agressive/dangerously around all "fkn cyclists" due to all the media frenzy.

The kind of stuff thats puts off alot of people cycling on the roads in the UK.

john1967

The lorry drivers in the M1 crash have been arrested on causing death by dangerous driving charges. so why no manslaughter charges??????

mamba80

philthy3 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Lorries have long known to be one if not the highest cause of death on UK roads, yet absolutely nothing gets done about it.
the terrible accident on the M1 today shows what these things can do, werent 6 people killed shortly after the MAnchester bomb by a lorry? no calls from the media to curb this death toll.... such is the unlikelihood of getting stopped by our tiny traffic police, they even drive around pissed!!!
yet one rogue cyclist has a freak accident and suddenly cyclists are public enemy no1 and need new legislation before more innocents are mown down, backed up by many riders on this forum.

Seriously, get off playing the "I'm a cyclist and a victim" card. Your arguments are flawed in so many ways and attitudes of cyclists are always hard done by, only highlight to others what pretentious w4nkers cyclists can be..

when you call me a w@nker, its pretty certain you lost the argument

cyclists can be their own worst enemy, that much is true but being stupid on a bike should nt be punishable by death and collision of a cyclist/horse rider/ pedestrian with a car or lorry will result in no injury to driver and 100% certainty of serious injury or death to the other party, you seem totally oblivious to this.

why do you think almost all of europe have a presumed liability law in RTA's ? and almost everyone who has cycled in euope will tell you that most drivers on the continent behave slightly better toward cyclists and other vulnerable road users?

I just maintain that if we wish to reduce the tragedy of road traffic deaths, then we should concentrate on the biggest causes.
when my daughter or GF go out cycling, my fear for them isnt that a crazy on a bicycle with no brakes will run them down, its that some tw@t in a car/van or lorry will over take to closely with on coming traffic or will just run them down and drive off, both types of "accident" are relatively common.

alliston was a bizzare incident and not something knee jerk legislation should be written for, we should look at the bigger picture and focus on what really ends 100's of lives each year.

If you really were a Police traffic officer and are a cyclist, i m very surprised you are so anti bike and do not see any issue with lorries, driver training and their accident rates.

Jerry185

PBlakeney wrote:

4th fact does though.

I should have phrased it better: riding an illegal bike does not make him guilty of being 'wantonly furious' when he was doing 10mph

simon_masterson

Riding a bike with no brakes on the road is less 'freak accident' as 'accident waiting to happen'. Even a rider very skilled at skidding is better off with a front brake as an option, and the vast majority of riders aren't good enough at skidding that they can safely do away with their brakes.

timothyw

Simon Masterson wrote:

Riding a bike with no brakes on the road is less 'freak accident' as 'accident waiting to happen'. Even a rider very skilled at skidding is better off with a front brake as an option, and the vast majority of riders aren't good enough at skidding that they can safely do away with their brakes.

The 'freak' accident part is that the pedestrian died. I don't know what the odds are but I suspect that you could have a hundred similar collisions at similar speeds without anyone suffering permanent damage from them.

Agreed though that riding without a brake is an accident waiting to happen and not something that I can condone.

With that said though, I'd rather an 18 year old riding round on a brakeless fixie than the more common sight of an 18 year old driving like they're on a racetrack - a rather more common accident waiting to happen and one that rarely makes the front pages.

bendertherobot

john1967 wrote:

The lorry drivers in the M1 crash have been arrested on causing death by dangerous driving charges. so why no manslaughter charges??????

There might be, in due course. But, historically, death by dangerous driving was brought in as a result of a reluctance to convict in manslaughter cases.

pblakeney

Jerry185 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

4th fact does though.

I should have phrased it better: riding an illegal bike does not make him guilty of being 'wantonly furious' when he was doing 10mph

Except he was going faster than 10mph on an unsafe illegal bike. Makes him responsible for an accident in which someone died. Definitely wanton, if not furious, and reports are that he was furious.

tangled_metal

That 10mph got me. Wasn't it 18mph dropped to was it 16 on impact or was it 10mph on impact.

Personally I only ride as fast as 18mph in quiet stretches of town. Places where the roads are simply too busy for pedestrians to even think of crossing the road on anywhere but a pedestrian crossing. Plus I've got good disc brakes front and rear.

awavey

bendertherobot wrote:

john1967 wrote:

The lorry drivers in the M1 crash have been arrested on causing death by dangerous driving charges. so why no manslaughter charges??????

There might be, in due course. But, historically, death by dangerous driving was brought in as a result of a reluctance to convict in manslaughter cases.

call me cynical if you like, but I wont be holding my breath on that happening at all.

awavey

Jerry185 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

4th fact does though.

I should have phrased it better: riding an illegal bike does not make him guilty of being 'wantonly furious' when he was doing 10mph

well technically it still does, youve got to remember its a 150+ year old law and it wasnt necessarily written to be taken as literally in English we might be more conversant with today.

so I dont believe the speed part is relevant against the wording of that particular law as it says "having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect...

by not having a secondary braking system, and riding a bike thats illegal to ride on the road, that is going to fall under "other wilful misconduct" or "wilful neglect" isnt it ?

StillGoing

john1967 wrote:

The lorry drivers in the M1 crash have been arrested on causing death by dangerous driving charges. so why no manslaughter charges??????

You don't get it do you. Death by dangerous carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. Manslaughter sentencing is similar. Maximum is life, but is rarely if ever given as sentencing is the Judge's decision. In some, a custodial sentence doesn't even follow, but in the main, it is 2 to 10 years depending on the circumstances. Courts will proceed with the more appropriate offence which is causing death by dangerous driving. Alliston was prosecuted for manslaughter simply because death by dangerous cycling currently doesn't exist and a more serious punishment than wanton and furious cycling was appropriate. He killed someone rather than make someone drop their shopping.

pblakeney

Wasn't he cleared of the manslaughter charge anyway?